coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which he had let to S.P.
9.  In a registered letter of 28 June 1988, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 1 July 1988 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 20 February 1991, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 14 March 1991, which was made enforceable on 27 March 1991, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
12.  On 30 November 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On an unidentified date, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 February 1993.
13.  On 3 December 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his mother.
14.  Between 19 February 1993 and 12 May 1997 the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 31 August 1997, the applicant repossessed the apartment.
8.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in Milan, which they had let to G.M. and R.C.
9.  In a registered letter of 23 January 1982, the applicants informed the tenants that they intended to terminate the lease and asked them to vacate the premises by 27 July 1982.
10.  In a writ served on the tenants on an unspecified date, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 4 November 1982, which was made enforceable on 15 December 1982, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1983.
12.  By a decision of 28 June 1985, the Milan Magistrate postponed the said deadline to 18 December 1985.
13.  On 13 December 1985, the applicants served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.
14.  On 11 February 1986, they served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 February 1986.
15.  Between 25 February 1986 and 24 November 1986, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession.
16.  On 14 April 1987, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for their daughter.
17.  Between 28 April 1987 and 12 January 1999, the bailiff made fifty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  At the end of January 1999, the tenants vacated the premises.
8.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Florence.
9.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Florence which he had let to G.F.
10.  In a registered letter of 6 June 1989, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 April 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 27 September 1989 the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 6 November 1989, which was made enforceable on 7 December 1989, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1993.
13.  On 28 September 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.
14.  On 14 May 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
15.  On 18 June 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 June 1993.
16.  Between 23 June 1993 and 15 December 1998 the bailiff made 13 attempts to recover possession.
17.  On 10 September 1998, the applicant made a second statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.
18.  Each attempt of the bailiff proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
19.  On 25 August 1999, the applicant served notice again on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 November 1999.
20.  On 17 September 1999, the tenant asked the Florence District Court to set a fresh date for the enforcement of the order for possession pursuant to Section 6 of Law No. 431/98.
21.  On 9 November 1999, the bailiff attempted to recover possession of the applicant’s apartment without success due to the lack of police assistance. He adjourned the enforcement proceedings to 23 March 2000.
22.  On 26 January 2001, the applicant recovered possession of his flat.
8.  The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1956 and living in Florence.
9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to P.R. and A.R.Z.
10.  In a registered letter of 7 June 1989, the applicant informed the tenants that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 15 December 1989 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  On 8 June 1989, she served a notice to quit on the tenants, but they refused to leave.
12.  In a writ served on the tenants on 21 October 1989, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
13.  By a decision of 20 November 1989, which was made enforceable on 27 November 1989, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 December 1990.
14.  On 18 December 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
15.  On 28 December 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.
16.  On 22 January 1991, she served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 February 1991.
17.  Between 6 February 1991 and 27 February 2000, the bailiff made twenty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  On 15 March 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
8.  The applicant was born in 1914 and lives in Inzago (Milano).
9.  The applicant is usufructuary of a flat owned by her husband A.C., which had been let to G.P.
10.  In a registered letter of 28 February 1985, the applicant’s husband informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 April 1986 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 April 1986, the applicant’s husband reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 26 April 1986, which was made enforceable on 14 May 1986, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1987.
13.  On 20 May 1987, the applicant’s husband served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 9 June 1987, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 July 1987.
15.  Between 10 July 1987 and 17 February 1988, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession.
16.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant’s husband was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  On 4 august 1988, the applicant’s husband died and the applicant inherited the usufruct of the flat.
18.  Between 30 June 1989 and 10 December 1998, the bailiff made 30 attempts to recover possession.
19.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
20.  On 12 May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of her flat.
8.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Florence.
9.  Mr and Mrs B. were the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to M.C.B.
10.  In a registered letter of 21 February 1987, they informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 April 1987, they reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 11 June 1987, which was made enforceable on 23 June 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
13.  On 6 August 1987, the applicant became the owner of the apartment.
14.  On 11 January 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
15.  On 9 May 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
16.  On 18 May 1989, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 July 1989.
17.  Between 11 July 1989 and 21 May 1998, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  On 3 July 1998, the tenant vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Florence.
9.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to A.R.
10.  In a registered letter of 4 November 1985, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 13 January 1987, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 19 January 1987, which was made enforceable on 4 February 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1988.
13.  On 18 March 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
14.  On 21 June 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
15.  On 7 August 1989 he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 August 1989.
16.  Between 18 September 1989 and 4 July 1996 the bailiff made 15 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  On 18 September 1996, the applicant recovered possession of his flat.
8. The applicant is the owner of a flat in Milan, which she had let to L.D.Z.
9.  In a registered letter of 6 June 1984, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 29 December 1984 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  On 11 February 1985, she served a notice to quit on the tenant, but she refused to leave.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 February 1985, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 27 February 1985, which was made enforceable on 14 March 1985, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 27 February 1986.
13.  On 23 January 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
14.  On 7 March 1986, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 April 1986.
15.  Between 18 April 1986 and 18 June 1992 the bailiff made 23 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  Thereafter, the applicant decided not to pursue the enforcement proceedings, in order to avoid useless costs, given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.
17.  On 13 April 1996 the applicant repossessed the flat, which the tenant vacated in pursuance of an agreement reached with the applicant.
8.  D.L.F. and D.E. were the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to F.M.
9.  In a registered letter of 30 December 1982, they informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 8 March 1986 D.L.F and D.E. reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 6 May 1986, which was made enforceable on 16 May 1986, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1988.
12.  On 28 April 1988, the applicant became the owner of the apartment.
13.  On 21 December 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 10 January 1991, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 March 1991.
15.  Between 18 March 1991 and 6 December 1991, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession. After the third attempt, the applicant decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings because of the lack of police assistance.
16.  On 8 February 1995, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her own use.
17.  On 20 February 1995, the applicant served notice again on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
18.  On 14 March 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 May 1995.
19.  Between 15 May 1995 and 14 April 1997, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
20.  Following a friendly settlement, in January 1998 the tenant vacated the premises.
8.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in Ghezzano di San Giuliano Terme (Pisa) which had been let to V.F.
9.  In a registered letter of 5 December 1990, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 December 1991, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Pisa Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 31 January 1992, which was made enforceable on 6 February 1992, the Pisa Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 January 1993.
12.  On 27 January 1994, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
13.  On 14 February 1994, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 February 1994.
14.  Between 28 February 1994 and 25 April 1998 the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  In June 1998, the applicants repossessed their flat.
8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Torre del Greco, which he had let to A.P.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 October 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 30 November 1990, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
11.  On 11 March 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.
12.  On 19 March 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
13.  On 7 April 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 26 April 1993.
14.  Between 26 April 1993 and 16 January 1997, the bailiff made nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt of the bailiff proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 28 April 1997, the tenant vacated the premises.
8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which he had let to A.B.
9.  In a registered letter of 26 March 1984, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1986 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  On 8 April 1986, he served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 April 1986, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 2 May 1986, which was made enforceable on 7 July 1986, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1988.
13.  On 13 July 1988 and again on 13 May 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 2 May 1989 the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
15.  On 17 June 1989 he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 August 1989.
16.  Between 7 August 1989 and 15 October 1996, the bailiff made fifteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  On 7 April 1997, the applicant repossessed the premises.
8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which he had let to S.S.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 29 March 1989, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 28 April 1989, which was made enforceable on 14 April 1993, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
11.  On 13 April 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.
12.  On 21 April 1993, he served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
13.  On 9 June 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 June 1993.
14.  Between 18 June 1993 and 14 May 1997, the bailiff made 10 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt of the bailiff proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 29 April 1997, the applicant and the tenant reached a friendly agreement and on 30 September 1998, the tenant vacated the premises.
8.  The applicants were both born in 1956 and they are currently living in Istanbul.
9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
10.  Until 18 September 1994 the applicants lived in the Dirimpınar village of the Malazgirt district in the province of Muş.
11.  On an unspecified date, while the applicant Ramazan Kınay was serving a prison sentence in Diyarbakır prison, the mayor of the village (muhtar) told the villagers and the applicant Makbule Kınay that their houses would be burned by security forces. Following this information, some of the villagers removed their belongings from their houses.
12.  On 18 September 1995, at about 8 p.m., security forces, composed of 50-60 village guards, special team members and gendarmes, arrived in the applicants’ village. Some members of the security forces conducted a search of the applicants’ house. They seized the valuables belonging to Makbule Kınay. They manhandled and insulted her as well as her three children. Then they poured gas on the applicants’ house and set it on fire together with its contents.
13.  Makbule Kınay recognised the village guards who had burned her house as being from the Nurettin village of the Malazgirt district.
14.  Following the burning of her house, Makbule Kınay moved to her relatives’ house in the Bulanık district of Muş. She then moved to İstanbul as a result of intimidation by the security forces. She later learnt that 75 tons of barley had been collected from their fields by the village guards.
15.  On 15 March 1995 Ramazan Kınay was conditionally released. On 30 November 1995 Ramazan Kınay filed a petition with the Üsküdar Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in İstanbul for submission to the Public Prosecutor’s office in Malazgirt. In his petition, he complained about the burning of his and his relatives’ houses by village guards. He requested permission to return to his village and compensation for the losses.
16.  No investigation was carried out into the applicants’ complaints.
17.  The applicant Ramazan Kınay was convicted of membership of the PKK. He was serving a prison sentence at the time of the alleged events.
18.  The authorities carried out an investigation into the applicants’ allegations of destruction of their property and their forced eviction from the village.
19.  On 5 December 1997 the Malazgirt Gendarme Commander took statements from the mayor of the Dirimpınar village. In his statements, the latter denied the applicants’ allegations. He stated that there were families still living in the village and that the applicant Makbule Kınay moved out of the village of her own free will.
20.  According to the records of the Land Registry, the applicants are the owners of 10,56 acres of land.
21.  Subsequent to the investigation carried out by the authorities, it was understood that, at the relevant time, there were no village guards or operations being carried out in the region.